红米Note 9 Pro智能手机评测:低价多能
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82.9 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
79.8 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
80.7 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4 | 200 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
79.6 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2020 | Realme 6 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
79.8 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | Oppo A91 Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 | |
81.3 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 |
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Realme 6 Pro | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
Realme 6 Pro |
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Tageslicht-Szene 1Tageslicht-Szene 25-facher ZoomUltraweitwinkelLowlight-Umgebung
|
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 610 cd/m²
Contrast: 1649:1 (Black: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.31
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Realme 6 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Oppo A91 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -34% | -65% | -86% | -112% | -43% | |
Brightness middle | 610 | 589 -3% | 669 10% | 442 -28% | 594 -3% | 478 -22% |
Brightness | 579 | 589 2% | 630 9% | 419 -28% | 613 6% | 448 -23% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 94 2% | 87 -5% | 90 -2% | 89 -3% | 87 -5% |
Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.42 -14% | 0.37 -0% | 0.49 -32% | ||
Contrast | 1649 | 1593 -3% | 1195 -28% | 976 -41% | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 2.22 -23% | 4.8 -167% | 6.1 -239% | 6.1 -239% | 3 -67% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3 | 8.24 -175% | 9 -200% | 9.7 -223% | 10.6 -253% | 5.6 -87% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 2.6 -4% | 6.2 -148% | 5.9 -136% | 7 -180% | 4.1 -64% |
Gamma | 2.31 95% | 2.111 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.35 94% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% |
CCT | 6864 95% | 6508 100% | 7846 83% | 7631 85% | 7370 88% | 7282 89% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2404 Hz | ≤ 43 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 2404 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 43 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2404 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10.8 ms rise | |
↘ 14.8 ms fall | ||
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 58 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.4 ms rise | |
↘ 24.4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 74 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (253274 - 288306, n=5) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (37.8 - 54.4, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (59.7 - 94.7, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (26.8 - 45.2, n=4) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (53 - 78, n=5) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (11846 - 17734, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (2532 - 3577, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | Realme 6 Pro | Oppo A91 | Huawei P40 Lite | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 17% | 19% | -6% | 35% | -5% | 337% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 498.1 | 496.1 0% | 535 7% | 513 3% | 505 1% | 913 83% | 513 ? 3% | 1894 ? 280% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 171.1 | 184.9 8% | 193.5 13% | 203.3 19% | 185.3 8% | 181.7 6% | 175.2 ? 2% | 1476 ? 763% |
Random Read 4KB | 122.6 | 110.8 -10% | 156.2 27% | 158.7 29% | 145.6 19% | 157.3 28% | 117.1 ? -4% | 278 ? 127% |
Random Write 4KB | 112.9 | 104.4 -8% | 180.4 60% | 154 36% | 28.55 -75% | 175.4 55% | 81.1 ? -28% | 312 ? 176% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.7 ? | 73 ? -5% | 71.6 ? -7% | 86.4 ? 13% | 77.2 ? 1% | 82.6 ? 8% | 73.4 ? -4% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 54.9 ? | 60.1 ? 9% | 57.3 ? 4% | 63.4 ? 15% | 60.3 ? 10% | 70.6 ? 29% | 55.4 ? 1% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.4 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 60% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.01 / 0.25 Watt |
Idle | 0.75 / 2.19 / 2.24 Watt |
Load |
3.88 / 5.97 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -5% | -14% | -11% | 15% | 3% | -4% | -19% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.75 | 0.9 -20% | 0.79 -5% | 0.92 -23% | 0.82 -9% | 0.79 -5% | 0.982 ? -31% | 0.883 ? -18% |
Idle Average * | 2.19 | 1.7 22% | 2.32 -6% | 1.79 18% | 1.73 21% | 2.14 2% | 1.94 ? 11% | 1.467 ? 33% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 1.8 20% | 2.38 -6% | 1.88 16% | 1.75 22% | 2.23 -0% | 2.06 ? 8% | 1.621 ? 28% |
Load Average * | 3.88 | 5.2 -34% | 4.72 -22% | 5.41 -39% | 2.33 40% | 3.6 7% | 4.02 ? -4% | 6.58 ? -70% |
Load Maximum * | 5.97 | 6.6 -11% | 7.68 -29% | 7.59 -27% | 5.97 -0% | 5.17 13% | 6.16 ? -3% | 9.91 ? -66% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -24% | -21% | -12% | -49% | -10% | |
Reader / Idle | 2336 | 1689 -28% | 1893 -19% | 2154 -8% | ||
H.264 | 1096 | 846 -23% | 984 -10% | 1176 7% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 1175 | 698 -41% | 864 -26% | 1031 -12% | 605 -49% | 1007 -14% |
Load | 303 | 289 -5% | 212 -30% | 228 -25% |
Pros
Cons
总结——再一次的低价高配:
借助Redmi Note 9 Pro,小米又发布了一款智能手机,该智能手机在其产品组合中具有很高的性价比。
售价250欧元(〜282美元),它提供了很多功能:明亮的6.67英寸IPS显示屏,6 GB的RAM,64或128 GB的内部存储,八核Snapdragon 720G SoC和带有四摄像头的影像系统。得益于5020 mAh电池,Redmi Note 9 Pro可以实现出色的运行时间,33瓦电源适配器可为手机快速充电,并且还有一些方便的附加功能,例如可同时容纳一个microSD和两个SIM卡的托架。
小米Redmi Note 9 Pro以其价格提供了很多价值,而其较长的续航和诸如NFC之类的附加功能使其在机海中脱颖而出。
另一方面,它的缺点很少而且不太重要。话虽这么说,但64-MP摄像并没有像其规格所显示的那样令人印象深刻,因为它缺乏动态范围。相比之下,30 FPS的游戏并不是一个大问题,尤其是因为它们很少会跌破此FPS。尽管智能手机包含预装的广告程序,但可以删除相应的应用程序。
这款智能手机的发布可能会让Redmi Note 9S的购买者感到遗憾。虽然Redmi Note 9 Pro在物理上几乎是相同的,但它提供了一些高端功能,包括NFC模块,但价格更贵。但是,从Redmi Note 8 Pro升级上来并不是特别值得,因为在两代之间只有很小的改进。
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
- 06/23/2020 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero